I first encountered this idea in a class called American Norms and Deviations with Prof. Robert Knox Denton at SUNY Buffalo. My professor’s theory was that when a law is passed, it creates a new category of deviants or criminals out of people who were considered normal, and whose activity was considered lawful, the day before. This happens over and over again until finally, everyone is included, sometimes many times, in one definition of deviant or another.
this reminds me of the dsmV, as they seem to draw closer to breathing different as a “dis-order”. careful now …
it also reminds me of a much more anarchistic and tribally inclined community, where we come together as whole (as possible) individuals to create true partnership. where i am completely and consciously responsible for my own each/every action/reaction in the order of highest good/soul growth – and so are you.
until we (re)internalize the implicity of such natural laws, and can trust that we are each committed to the process with unconditional love, the explicit patterns will continue.
my understanding so far…
♥☮♫
Half, you are at least three quarters by now.
My local ordinance requires that I have only ONE parking space for customers of my small business, because of the business size. However, if I have more than one customer, I will lose money if i don’t provide parking accommodations. Therefore I have 5 parking spots. The free market works wonders or fails miserably for various reasons.
If i minimally abide by the law (one parking space), i could turn the customers into sinners by way of causing them to curse me, and perhaps God. But that wouldn’t upset me as much as if the angry customers complained about me by word of mouth to other would be customers that I don’t give a damn about customer service. All sinful behavior, caused by me, and at a significant cost to my future earnings and also tax revenues. LOL. So, why do we need freakin laws like this? Abraham might be onto something.
Hi Eric, In my book all talk of rights is an illusion – we impose an arbitrary construct upon reality. If it came to commodities, say fishing ‘rights’, we wouldn’t begin with the problem concept first and read it into the situational description. We might ask the question “Who owns the fish of the sea?” Nobody does this but they will jump quickly to debates about rights in the matter. Why? Because the regulatory issue in play that everyone shares as an assumptive starting point is ‘people need to eat’. The only interesting question then is HOW that gets to happen, jobs, roles, tasks, responsibilities, rights, privileges etc.
If you ask me we need to move beyond the assumptive framework questions on myriad levels and start to penetrate what regulatory systems would serve us better.
On your example, once people are driven by “What’s our connective tissue here?” rather than “How are you infringing me?” The whole focus shifts. Because if Abraham is not just giving us part of the story we have to add our balance that not only do we often create our own problems in the areas of codifying, we certainly are the only solution no matter what is codified.
kinda like the difference between saturn in capricorn and saturn in aquarius
Some freedoms are ours by right of law; others are ours by right of there being no law restricting it.
The concept of negative liberty refers to freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is freedom that is yours because no law has restricted your exercise of that liberty.
Positive liberty refers instead to the opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one’s own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint. Positive liberty is basically freedom guaranteed to you by the law. Nobody can take it away from you; it is an absolute entitlement. This is an active and assertive statement of clearly demarcated liberty
what you are talking about is negative liberty versus positive liberty
Thanks for putting a tangible formula to my esoteric blah blah Eric. As I typed I was thinking about the idea of how not to be target practice for a raging gunman….playing music at night is a much more pleasant example.
It just feels like we have to evolve to a new way of being that has to do with turning off and on our presence in any given moment — which is great in a sci-fi book but not practical today, to be sure.
Half, let’s take this with a seemingly simple ethical question: my right to play music late at night versus my neighbor’s right to not be kept up by my playing loud music. What do we do with that one?
So until we can manifest our own consciousness and therefore “destiny” within the structure of the whole, without that consciousness or destiny being swayed by another’s desire, consciousness, destiny, we will continue to fracture?
Half – great. Thank you. Wish I could be in immersed in this sort of study.
PS I woke this morning with a ticket in my hand stamped “7:40”. Anyone on the “7:40” theme?
PPS Meditation this morning brought on thoughts regarding lanugauge and the idea that written language is what, in part, helps us to find “grey area” inside communication that would otherwise be prone to be more black/white/ either/or up/down? And is the shorthand of today’s communication devices creating a void or backwards step in our ability to Communicate Well – with Nuance?
hey, gorillas are people too! actually they are smarter.
that IS a great book.
fresh bait! deep inbreath..(——–||||||——- )
j. kidding!! I won’t go crazy on this one,
mm, the Trust issue. I mean, just imagine if your neighbor said to you, “I don’t trust you.” (I just imagined it, and after a shock ringing through my body, I automatically started putting protection around myself. and even though the comment was directed at me, the feeling inside was like ‘there’s danger ALL around’. and all my normal, positive flow shut the hell right off. which is when then, you have to be awake and realize your neighbor might have an issue, and get your flow back going again, but I’m going off-topic.) yeah. a generalized distrust breeds suspicion creating a not-so good environment.. and it’s weird how quickly things can escalate fr. there. spooky!
Regulation is a little rigid for me, I feel homeostasis is more of a Flow. mincing I know.
always love reading your comments Half, they usually make me have to turn a few more lights on- & it’s a good thing.
Kristal, what I think is totally insane is how many many places (it’s surprising where too) here have building codes which require a house to be no smaller than say, 3000 sq. ft.
anyway, thanks for posting this Abraham. it’s as thought-provoking as when I opened my email today.
I haven’t figured out how to make a smoke signal yet on the keyboard, but I have seen mirrors on this blog somewhere…I think it was here…?
peace Everyone
“Of course, ‘God’ created the first law in Eden. Problem. Let’s NOT think about that.”
yeah right
this is why one of my fave books of all time remains Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
And yet go to Estherhams boards and read the rules hehehehe…….they so contradict themselves 🙂
But then again so does the bible 🙂
The US and many other countries are legislated to death…….it is what creates job security for silly (civil) servants LOL…..there are a few states who actually have legislation against collecting rain water on your own property without a license I hear from a friend in NJ……..
Silliness……..
But I am apparently a rebel without a cause who relishes defying silly rules 🙂
Happy smoke and mirrors week to my american friends…….xoxoxoxox
Basically, we wouldn’t have the Jesus of today without Paul, who was of course prior to his conversion, not Paul but Saul of Tarsus – an ultra-orthodox Jew who persecuted Christians.
Saul’s relationship to Torah prior to his Damascus experience thoroughly forged a backdrop to the Christian doctrine of Grace over against Law, Faith over against obedience (particularly emphasized in Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians and Romans).
Nietzsche found the most complete depravity in what Paul ‘did’ to Jesus – reinventing the old power paradigm over again in new form – you could say supported by a now unaccountable resurrection to power and glory beyond human reach – purportedly the quintessential and final salvific event becomes the new tyranny of power. (Not everyone agrees).
Paul was interested in HOW the Jesus phenomenon had fundamentally transformed collective human relatedness to the (Jewish) Law (Torah) and what, in turn, now most authentically mediated connection to the deity.
Paul is not talking modern psychology, interestingly enough! He is, in a time-bound, culturally and politically-defined way, expressing his views to how humanity can reinvent its relationship to God. So although ‘without sin the law is dead’ may be a parallel to the Abraham quote above, Paul is saying that the law provided a way for sin to be exposed (where it could previously hide in the human heart).
So it’s not simply law creating the problem but law providing the opportunity for Sin to manifest itself. Christian Hamartiology (Doctrine of Sin) can thus, through Pauline theology, now give sin an ontology; just as readily as the devil and the demons – an ultra-holiness/purity stance.
Of course, the whole debate goes much deeper if you apply a Philosophy of Religion lens to the Judeo-Christian story (I’m really not sure Paul would not have liked such a development!)
Of course, ‘God’ created the first law in Eden. Problem. Let’s NOT think about that.
What the debate, developed further, is capable of showing about wrongdoing however – and correlated back to God the originator of disobedience by creating the requirement for obedience – is that we are not dealing simply with moralistic concepts of right/wrong or ‘you crossed a line!’ – we are dealing with how we manage boundaries within complexity.
Management protocols imposed from outside are precisely what Nietzsche considered so toxic as enslaving the human; where the theology seemed to be saying there was the innocence in being without the burden of knowledge (and the ‘powers that be’ have exploited this to the hilt it has to be said – paternalism is SO caring. We CARE… About YOU… We REALLY do) healthy psychology was/is crying out for autonomy (not disconnection – its misrepresentation in certain circles).
The problem is more deeply about the two bedfellows, individualism and dualism (who will not be separated). So the dilemma has always been about ‘rights’ or individual rights versus the rights of the collective – FALSE but everywhere.
The issue is in reality about whether, in the world that we happen to inhabit, it is possible for unique people to self-regulate in a way that differs from the choices that others make in that regard, from their own point of view. The traditional response to the merest hint of this suggestion makes the (small c) conservatives in society speak of Anarchy spreading like wildfire – we MUST contain it – ‘society WILL break down’!!! NOPE!
So there is a drama and probably always will be..
Nevertheless, it is such a simplistic concession to the individualism part of the ‘spiritual’ piece to see the law as simply creating law breakers as an expression of psychology. Essentially the question is one of rhythms and cycles – even our heart beat and temperature have to be regulated, along with many phenomena that are absolutely natural and intrinsic to life.
Regulation is core to all that is – it has to happen. It is not really viable to undermine one model of regulation, unless a better one can be supplied. Basically, that’s irresponsible!
The only interesting question once you are aware is what or who is doing the regulating?
It is possible to come to freeing conclusions once that central reality lays unobscured… and, if the collective ever did work this out, the planet may start to make some serious progress with all that fresh material to work with…
Um, list things off as sins, therefore, create sinners?
Saint Paul.. in drag